There's also purgatory, the filioque, the assumption of Mary (which is an issue because it is now dogma), the Immaculate conception, supererogatory works, created grace, and so on. They were just starting with the easy ones. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I have been to an orthodox monastery ( old calendar)and the preast preached about the Dormition and thw Glorious Assumption of Mary. I think it is something that we, orthodox, admit also.

The Catholic Catechism makes the relationship of the church dependant solely upon a bishop of bishops... the Pope.881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/881.htm

"The claim of the Roman pope to have universal ordinary jurisdiction over the worldwide Church is dependent upon that the notion that the universal Church — rather than the diocese — is the Catholic Church."Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p120.

The Catholic notion is at odds with the Orthodox idea that all bishops are equal, and that all churches are complete. We can examine the Church Fathers to see how they used the term ‘catholic’.

The first time the term is used in a Christian sense it refers to the local church (remember here that the Orthodox approach is that the church always held that each bishop is equal in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans "Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"St. Ignatius “The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans" Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Further, the Catholic notion of the Trinity makes the Holy Spirit a 'junior partner', dependant on the other two.

Are you saying they all exactly equal or not?Is (sic) is a simple enough question.

Actually it's not a simple enough question. However I did answer you. They are all fully God. What do you think being God is? I've given you the answer you're getting. Whatever God is they are fully God. If you want an exact exposition on the nature of an ultimately unknowable God then try some scholastic mind puzzles, a la Thomas Aquinas. You make the Holy Spirit the junior member, dependant on the other two. That's fine for you, I suppose.[/list]

Actually it's not a simple enough question. However I did answer you. They are all fully God. What do you think being God is? I've given you the answer you're getting. Whatever God is they are fully God. If you want an exact exposition on the nature of an ultimately unknowable God then try some scholastic mind puzzles, a la Thomas Aquinas. You make the Holy Spirit the junior member, dependant on the other two. That's fine for you, I suppose.[/list]

As I understand it the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Son less than the Father.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

There's also purgatory, the filioque, the assumption of Mary (which is an issue because it is now dogma), the Immaculate conception, supererogatory works, created grace, and so on. They were just starting with the easy ones. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I would like to add that, concerning Theotokos, we, orthodox, may not have a dogma of Immaculate Conception, but in our liturgical life many hymnes describing Her as: "Immaculate, Irreprochable, Most Pure Virgin, Spouse of God..."In our conciense (I could say sensus fidei, but it's a catholic term ) the Most Holy Virgin is the Most Pure Creature of God, surpassing even Cherubs and Serafim.

As I understand it the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Son less than the Father.

I know some EO who say the same about the RCC with the Holy Spirit because of the Filioque.

However, this is not true at all. If Orthodoxy taught that the Son is less than the Father, then the Son could NOT be God. The Son is fully God. However, the Son is also eternally begotten from the Father. Although both Churches teach this, in my experience the RCC does not emphasize this fact to the full degree and generally in the west, IMHO, Trinitarian Theology is not as emphasized. However, because the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, then the Father is His source. Yet, one not understand this as a lesser deity because the Son proceeds fully you now have a separate hypostasis of the same essence. The Orthodox Church theaches the Father as a monarch and the Father of the Trinity, but they are all fully God. Yet, because the Son is eternally begotton from the Father, the Church also teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot proceed eternally from the Son, for this would subordinate the Son. Hope this explains the teaching in a nutshell.[/list]

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

I've heard the RC doctrine as Mary was assumed into Heaven BEFORE she fell asleep (as in, never did in an earthly format - similar to Elijah or Enoch). The EO view is apparant if you look at an icon of the Dormition.

Where did you hear this brother, from an Orthodox or Catholic in a position of authority?

Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

I know some EO who say the same about the RCC with the Holy Spirit because of the Filioque. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

However, this is not true at all. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If Orthodoxy taught that the Son is less than the Father, then the Son could NOT be God. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Son is fully God. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š However, the Son is also eternally begotten from the Father. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Although both Churches teach this, in my experience the RCC does not emphasize this fact to the full degree and generally in the west, IMHO, Trinitarian Theology is not as emphasized. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š However, because the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, then the Father is His source. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Yet, one not understand this as a lesser deity because the Son proceeds fully you now have a separate hypostasis of the same essence. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Orthodox Church theaches the Father as a monarch and the Father of the Trinity, but they are all fully God. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Yet, because the Son is eternally begotton from the Father, the Church also teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot proceed eternally from the Son, for this would subordinate the Son. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hope this explains the teaching in a nutshell.[/list]

Oh good a debate about the trinity

So you are saying if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son the this makes the Son less then the Father?As I understand the matter both the Catholic and Orthodox have the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.Is this incorrect?Thanks

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

So you are saying if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son the this makes the Son less then the Father?As I understand the matter both the Catholic and Orthodox have the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.Is this incorrect?

mum.

Yes, both Churches teach that the Sprit proceeds through the Father, the Orthodox teach that it is temporarily however, not eternally. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For if it is eternally, then the Spirit has two sources (as opposed to the Son)/ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Am I that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this makes the Son less than the Father? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š No, but I do argue that it misconstrues the relationship of the Trinity, ergo, a misunderstanding of each Person. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The difference is between "from" and "through." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Although I agree with Mother Annastasiya that it is important to feed the hungry and be charitable, I also believe that it is necessary to have right understanding of Orthodoxy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For to properly understand the Trinity is to properly understand how to worship God.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2006, 02:59:55 PM by dantxny »

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Yes, both Churches teach that the Sprit proceeds through the Father, the Orthodox teach that it is temporarily however, not eternally. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For if it is eternally, then the Spirit has two sources (as opposed to the Son)/ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Am I that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this makes the Son less than the Father? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š No, but I do argue that it misconstrues the relationship of the Trinity, ergo, a misunderstanding of each Person. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The difference is between "from" and "through." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Although I agree with Mother Annastasiya that it is important to feed the hungry and be charitable, I also believe that it is necessary to have right understanding of Orthodoxy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For to properly understand the Trinity is to properly understand how to worship God.

What?

Lets try to clear this one up as simply as possible if we can.1) The Son is begotten of the Father non-temporally?2) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son non-temporally?3) Both the Catholic and Orthodox Believe this?

Right?

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

:More or less yes. The Son is begotten of the Father eternally, before time.

Quote

2) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son non-temporally?

This one is still arguble, theologically. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally, yes. He does proceed through the Son temporarilly, but not eternally.

Quote

3) Both the Catholic and Orthodox Believe this?

Depends on who you ask.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

We also see the Immaculate Conception dogma making the Theotokos to be the "great exception" rather than the "great example." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Immaculate Conception really separates Mary from her Jewish faith tradition and makes her out to be something different, which in turn makes her role as mother of the Messiah somewhat separated from this Jewish tradition. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The dogma also makes an exception of the Theotokos--an exception that some Orthodox even consider degrading to her role in our salvation--by implying that God took away from her her freedom to obey her own destiny. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š This goes counter to why the Orthodox see in Mary the "great example," for it was the free obedience of the Theotokos that allowed God to form Himself within her womb.

Not necessarily. Being conceived immaculately simply means that Mary was conceived in the same condition as Adam and Eve before the fall. And Adam and Eve obviously had free will.

:More or less yes. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Son is begotten of the Father eternally, before time. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š This one is still arguble, theologically. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally, yes. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He does proceed through the Son temporarilly, but not eternally.Depends on who you ask.

Ok that's good enough.Thanks

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

No, this is not what I had hoped to communicate. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am committed to Truth, the fullness of which I find in Orthodoxy alone. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Frankly, our division saddens me, and I long for the day when the RC church and the Orthodox Church will be united again. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am committed to doing what I can now by the grace of God to bring this about. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š However, I do not believe that union can ever come about by us just ignoring our major theological differences and pursuing a union based on lowest-common-denominator relativism and/or the embrace of heresy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š This is really not respectful to either your tradition or mine.

Well why don't you talk about the differences, what they are, and why, and what can be done, instead of being smug sounding that you are so great and the Catholics are all wrong about everything.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Well why don't you talk about the differences, what they are, and why, and what can be done, instead of being smug sounding that you are so great and the Catholics are all wrong about everything.

Yeah, I know it's hard to communicate emotion through nothing more than the written word, so I forgive you for misunderstanding my posts. I didn't intend to communicate any triumphalism or smugness on my part or on the part of the Orthodox. Please forgive me for sounding like this. I actually do have a great amount of respect at least for traditional Catholicism, which had preserved universally much of the high-church liturgical practice and traditional doctrines of the ancient pre-schismatic Church until the reforms of Vatican II.

That said, I would be crassly irresponsible to engage you and other RC's in dialog with the goal of lowest-common-denominator ecumenism that seeks to whitewash our differences and make them appear as if they don't exist. This is the attitude that I sought to refute in my responses to Mother Anastasia's posts. I want that we should discuss the issues that really matter to both sides without pulling any punches. Only by recognizing our differences can we work to overcome them in a way that is faithful to Truth, which I see in its fullness only in the Orthodox Church--I would not be humbly honest and true to my faith if I didn't make this statement.

Of course, I don't want you to expect that you're going to get balanced dialog on this Orthodox forum; most of us are going to stand firm on our Orthodox convictions and call various RC doctrines heresy. As far as my contribution to the discussion, I've stated all that I see as heretical in the Roman Catholic faith, just as you asked me to do when you started this thread.

At the risk of being accused again of still being Orthodox (when it is really just the egghead inside, that cannot resist answering a question that I think I know something about)... ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Quote

As I understand it the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the Son less than the Father.

So far as I understand, the Orthodox believe that, in the Divine Essence (as opposed to the Divine economy), God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are exactly the same in every way, with one single exception: the Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. (cf John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 2 and 8 and 10)

What, according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, are the heresy's of the Catholic Church?

In my oppinion, the main obstacle between the two Churches, or, if you'd like, the Two Houses is the primacy of the Pope, including some historical events that hardened the relation ship between O & RC...All the rest, in my eyes (I am not a specialist, nor a nun), as filioque or other dogmatical subjects, are just to justify this state of non-communication between O & RCBut always in my oppinion

Not necessarily. Being conceived immaculately simply means that Mary was conceived in the same condition as Adam and Eve before the fall. And Adam and Eve obviously had free will.

The belief in the Immaculate Conception is clearly foreign to Orthodoxy. The Theotokos was not conceived in a bubble apart from the human race, she is one of us. Also, because of this, the term "immaculate" is a loaded one for the Orthodox. It's used sometimes in English translations when I think that "most pure" or a variant of this should be used instead.

This post of mine on an earlier thread confirms what PetertheAleut says about the Immaculate Conception and voices it in a slightly different way:

I think he was referring to Mother Annastasia (who is a vagante church) and not Eastern Orthodoxy.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Actually, to most Orthodox and traditionalist Catholics, much of what passes for ecumenical dialogue today is indeed an attempt to whitewash our differences. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Now, what makes you qualified to know the working of the Holy Spirit where the Orthodox Church somehow does not?AMEN!Yes, I agree that this is true. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Pharisaism is a very common temptation, and, sadly, I have seen much of it in the Protestantism I left and the Orthodoxy I joined. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I've even succumbed to this temptation at times.Many outside of the Orthodox Church will be saved, and many within the Orthodox Church will be condemned.

The one contention with which I disagree, though, is your apparent contention that all polemic debate of theologically divisive issues is automatically uncharitable straining after gnats. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š We Orthodox believe--and I'm sure that many traditionalist Catholics believe the same--that one of the most charitable things we can do in dialog with the other side is to preach that our Church is the One Church that Christ established for our salvation and that it is necessary for our salvation to abandon our heresies and be reunited with this One true Church of Christ. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (Your belief that the Church is some mystical body that includes in some invisible way the faithful of the RC Church together with the faithful of the Orthodox Church is consistent with neither traditional Catholic nor Orthodox understanding of the Church.)

I'm absolutely certain that apologists on both sides will preach this fundamental teaching with total humility and love, for in so doing they will be obeying the Great Commission to preach what they believe is the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š When I dialog with a Catholic who seeks to preach that I must become Catholic to enter into the fullness of the Way to salvation, I'm actually filled with joy that he loves me enough to do this, even though I disagree with him and am equally prepared to reciprocate the same preaching to him. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (I actually lived with a Catholic housemate with whom I had this kind of loving friendship. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š We each preached to each other the truth of our churches and sometimes fell to the temptation to argue with each other, but we each respected what truth we saw in the other's tradition.) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š This is the interfaith dialog that I call true ecumenism.

Actually, Catholics regard the Eastern Orthodox Church as our sister Church with valid sacraments and apostolic succession and we are happy for Orthodox to come to a Catholic church just as a Catholic would even in confession and the Eucharist. We are hopeful for reciprocation and reunification but sad at the lack of progress thus far.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â°ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â±ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¯ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â± ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â»ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â»ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â·ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¯ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8922.msg118821#msg118821 date=1146670979]In my oppinion, the main obstacle between the two Churches, or, if you'd like, the Two Houses is the primacy of the Pope, including some historical events that hardened the relation ship between O & RC...All the rest, in my eyes (I am not a specialist, nor a nun), as filioque or other dogmatical subjects, are just to justify this state of non-communication between O & RCBut always in my oppinion [/quote]

I think this is the heart of the matter.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

Thank you Mother Anastasia for being a generous, reasonable, and constructive contributor to this thread. I hope you do not desist now.

Peace be with you.

Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

She's done nothing but continuously pass judgment upon every Orthodox poster in this thread, insinuated that she is holier than all others here, and claimed to know the mind of the Holy Spirit. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Is that what passes for "generous, reasonable, and constructive" contributions in Rome's eyes?

Well, that is an interesting responce.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

I am concerned by some of the things I saw there. The first thing that strikes me is that the site presents an ecumenist belief that both the Eastern and Roman churches departed from traditional Christian faith.

I would sincerely like to know what caused you to come to this conclusion.

It may be perhaps the statement after the links (on His Perspective) which has been revised but is not posted as yet. But I am interested to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The only consistant "heresy" you have come up with is the position of the Bishop of Rome

One could argue that purgatory and other doctrines are heretical... personally it doesn't much matter to me. So I'll ask a different question. Are there a certain number of heretical beliefs necessary before things get really serious? Is one heresy ok, while 4 or more means a Church has fallen? If a female friend of yours said to you "Well sure he has cheated on me with that girl for years, but that's only one mistake. It's not like he beats me. He's only made one mistake and admittedly refuses to change. But why would I seperate from him over that?" would you agree with that logic? Is it not really adultery if it's just one other woman/heresy (whether personally or ecclesiastically)?

Also, as a general question, are all heresies of the same weight? For example, Theodore the Studite (a pre-schism saint ) called a certain divorce of the emperor, which was allowed by the religious of the time, "heresy"... but did he mean heresy in the same way that someone would call papal supremacy heresy? Maybe there are levels or degrees of heresy, in which case the Orthodox could probably argue for more than half a dozen heresies.

One could argue that purgatory and other doctrines are heretical... personally it doesn't much matter to me. So I'll ask a different question. Are there a certain number of heretical beliefs necessary before things get really serious? Is one heresy ok, while 4 or more means a Church has fallen? If a female friend of yours said to you "Well sure he has cheated on me with that girl for years, but that's only one mistake. It's not like he beats me. He's only made one mistake and admittedly refuses to change. But why would I seperate from him over that?" would you agree with that logic? Is it not really adultery if it's just one other woman/heresy (whether personally or ecclesiastically)?

Also, as a general question, are all heresies of the same weight? For example, Theodore the Studite (a pre-schism saint ) called a certain divorce of the emperor, which was allowed by the religious of the time, "heresy"... but did he mean heresy in the same way that someone would call papal supremacy heresy? Maybe there are levels or degrees of heresy, in which case the Orthodox could probably argue for more than half a dozen heresies.

Two points.1. I don't agree that it is a heresy as I have already said!!!2. That a lovely forgiving Christian attitude you've got there. Are you married?

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

I am married, I'm not Christian, and if my wife cheated on me and wasn't sorry for it, but even continued on cheating, then yes, I would have a hard time forgiving her. Leastwise it'd be very hard to live and have close contact with her while she openly slept with another man. What you are asking is that Orthodox Christians ignore that, from Orthodoxy's perspective, Catholicism is still sleeping around.

I am married, I'm not Christian, and if my wife cheated on me and wasn't sorry for it, but even continued on cheating, then yes, I would have a hard time forgiving her. Leastwise it'd be very hard to live and have close contact with her while she openly slept with another man. What you are asking is that Orthodox Christians ignore that, from Orthodoxy's perspective, Catholicism is still sleeping around.

From the point of view of the Catholics the Orthodox falsely accuse us of being in the wrong when they themselves are in the wrong!

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

What on earth is going on here?I always seem to get this from Orthodox people on the net. Why?

(Imagine me saying this in a rather jocular sort of manner. ) You come to an Orthodox forum and start a thread asking the Orthodox posters to share with you what they see as the heresies in your RC tradition. How else would you expect us to respond? You asked us to be honest, and you got honesty from us. I would say you got what you asked for.

(Imagine me saying this in a rather jocular sort of manner. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š You come to an Orthodox forum and start a thread asking the Orthodox posters to share with you what they see as the heresies in your RC tradition. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š How else would you expect us to respond? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š You asked us to be honest, and you got honesty from us. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I would say you got what you asked for. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I asked for a list with an explanation and not content less post just pointing out the Orthodox or better and right so there.I'm not interested in one-upmanship I'm interested in the issues.OK?Thanks.

Logged

Hamlet: 2. 2.Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?